Add support for multiple content shares #998

xuesichao · 2025-04-22T21:03:53Z

Issue #:

Description of changes:

Added support for multiple content shares in meetings through the ContentShareProvider. The provider now accepts a maxContentShares prop (default: 1, range 1-2) to specify the maximum number of concurrent content shares allowed.
- Added new collections in ContentShareState to track multiple content shares: tiles, tileIdToAttendeeId, and attendeeIdToTileId.
- Added optional tileId prop to the ContentShare component to specify which content share to render.
- Added canStartContentShare state to control when content sharing is allowed based on the current number of shares and configured maximum.
- Maintained backward compatibility by keeping tileId and sharingAttendeeId properties, which now point to the most recently started content share when multiple shares are present.

Testing

Have you successfully run npm run build:release locally?

Yes

How did you test these changes?

Update meeting demo to enable multiple content shares and verify the hook values, ContentTile components are working as expected.

If you made changes to the component library, have you provided corresponding documentation changes?

Yes.

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.

ltrung · 2025-04-22T22:14:07Z

src/components/sdk/ContentShare/ContentShare.mdx

  return (
    <MeetingProvider>
-      <ContentShare nameplate='Content share' />
+      <ContentShare nameplate="Content share" />


Are we using " or ' in this repo?

We use single quote for JS, but here it should be double quote because it's a property on JSX element. Like we should use double quote on HTML element

xuesichao · 2025-04-22T22:16:35Z

src/components/sdk/ContentShare/index.tsx


 interface Props extends BaseSdkProps {
  nameplate?: string;
+  tileId?: number;


Note that since the VideoGrid UI Component only supports one featured area/tile, when there's two content shares available, I split the featured area into two parts to display both content share tiles there. This change only exists in meeting demo (I implemented a custom VideoTileGrid component in demo app) for testing purpose.

For builders, they will need to create VideoTileGrid to handle multiple content share tiles based on their UX using updated ContentTile component.

xuesichao · 2025-04-22T22:19:10Z

src/providers/ContentShareProvider/index.tsx


+// Define the supported range for content shares
+const MIN_SUPPORTED_CONTENT_SHARES = 1;
+const MAX_SUPPORTED_CONTENT_SHARES = 2;


If in the future we supports more than 2 content shares from backend, we simply just need to update this constant.

xuesichao · 2025-04-22T22:23:10Z

src/providers/ContentShareProvider/docs/ContentShareProvider.mdx

-  // The chime attendee ID of the user sharing
-  sharingAttendeeId: string | null;
+  // Whether the user can start a content share based on current limits and `isLocalUserSharing`
+  canStartContentShare: boolean;


We might want to change this to hasReachedContentShareLimit so it's decoupled from isLocalUserSharing, let me know your thoughts

+1 for decouple, feel like state should be independent from each other here, also, builder may have feature on hasReachedContentShareLimit only.

My initial thought is to add a convenient boolean flag that builders can use to disable the content share button. This is needed to handle two scenarios:

When content sharing limits have been reached

When the local attendee is already sharing content

For scenario 1, previously, with single content share, if a second attendee started sharing, the SDK would automatically stop the existing share (takeover). However, now that we support multiple (2) concurrent content shares, attempting a third share will fail due to media limits, and the takeover won't occur. Since error handling for this case isn't straightforward (the error can't be caught directly in the API call), it's better to proactively disable the content share button when limits are reached.

Even without canStartContentShare builder can still achieve the same by using

const canStartContentShare = tiles.length < maxContentShares && !isLocalUserSharing

It's a comparison between below three options, and I think option 1 is most convenient and aligns with my intention.

const disabled = canStartContentShare; // option 1 const disabled = hasReachedContentShareLimit && !isLocalUserSharing // option 2 const disabled = tiles.length < maxContentShares && !isLocalUserSharing // option 3

if there an use case that builder can implement to kick off the 1st sharing when the 3rd starts? In this case, even though it reaches the max limit, but it literally is allowed to start content share.

Today we don't allow three content shares from media side. So they cannot start a 3rd one, but they can stop one content share first, then canStartContentShare becomes true and then start the 3rd (which is in fact the second content share stream in the meeting)

Hmm thinking option 1 is simplest for builders? Reason: The limit on whether a content share can start or not when its at max limit + local user sharing is decided by the library and not by the builders. If we add hasReachedContentShareLimit instead, then it seems builder will have to make such a decision knowing what all applies for a content share to be not allowed.

Thus, current props sounds fine to me. But we have to explain this in the documentation.

Cool, I'll go with option 1 now. We can always add hasReachedContentShareLimit if we find it needed later.

ziyiz-amzn · 2025-04-23T00:01:26Z

CHANGELOG.md


 ### Added

+- Added support for multiple content shares in meetings through the `ContentShareProvider`. The provider now accepts a `maxContentShares` prop (default: 1, range 1-2) to specify the maximum number of concurrent content shares allowed.


nonblocker: maxConcurrentContentShare may be a better name?

I feel 'concurrent' is redundant here, since 'maxContentShares' itself is already clear and unambiguous.

What if we dont have such a prop? Can we take Video tiles like route. For example, we have a max limit on video streams but we dont have a prop for the max limit for them limiting builders. Correct me if not here. Have to check how that is limited component usage wise.

I'm not following your question, could you explain a bit more?

We need this props for two reasons:

Since this is a breaking change and we're not planning a major version release, we need to implement an opt-in mechanism so builders can explicitly enable this feature.

Builder might want to limit concurrent content share to 1 even when 2 is supported, this prop can handle this conveniently. Alternatively builder can check the number of number active content share via tiles.length, and have a flag to disable the button when it tiles.length <=1 by themselves.

Right, just trying to see whether we adding a new prop vs using the tiles.length is fine too. If the later is fine, why introduce a new one? Now still going through review, will understand and sync on the breaking change part. Are you saying that builders if today with existing library APIs try to start 2 content share (if they can), that would break content share components?

If the later is fine, why introduce a new one?

Since this is a breaking change and we're not planning a major version release, we need to implement an opt-in mechanism so builders can explicitly enable this feature.

will understand and sync on the breaking change part. Are you saying that builders if today with existing library APIs try to start 2 content share (if they can), that would break content share components?

Before this change when the second attendee starts content share, sdk will stop existing content share (when it detects a second content share tile), so it ensures only one content share tile available. After this change, when allowing multiple content share, starting the second content share won't stop the existing one. This is the breaking behavior and user needs to explicitly opt-in this

Right I get it now, its more like a feature flag in a way where its honored and backward compatible in the ContentShareProvider.

ziyiz-amzn · 2025-04-23T00:20:29Z

src/components/sdk/ContentShare/index.tsx

    <ContentTile
      objectFit="contain"
-      className={className || ''}
+      className={`ch-content-share--${tileIdToRender} ${className || ''}`}


is this a defined class name?

No, this className is not used in fact, I added here to follow how we did for RemoteVideo component, it serves as an identifier

amazon-chime-sdk-component-library-react/src/components/sdk/RemoteVideo/index.tsx

Line 50 in efb7f0f

className={`ch-remote-video--${tileId} ${className || ''}`}

The prefix classname is to make sure we can confidently override the styles on this one and is a way to let builders know that they should not change these I believe. ch stands for chime :) from those times.

ziyiz-amzn · 2025-04-23T01:16:00Z

src/providers/ContentShareProvider/state.tsx

+        attendeeIdToUpdate
+      );
+
+      const backwardCompatibility = updateBackwardCompatibility(


may have a better var and method name. maybe updatedState and updateForBackwardCompatibility?

This is to handle backward compatibility for existing tileId and sharingAttendeeId.

const backwardCompatibility = { tileId: number | null; // updated value sharingAttendeeId: string | null; // updated value }

I think const updatedStateForBackwardCompatibility and updateForBackwardCompatibility() best describe the purpose, but they are a little verbose.

updated to a better naming in my opinion

devalevenkatesh · 2025-04-23T18:01:49Z

src/components/sdk/ContentShare/ContentShare.mdx


+## Multiple Content Shares
+
+With the support for multiple content shares, you can now specify which content share tile to render by providing the `tileId` prop. If no `tileId` is provided, the component will render the default content share tile from (`const { tileId } = useContentShareState()`).


So what will the tileId default to in case one does not provide it as a prop? Suggest adding a clarification for builder to help get answer to this question in the docs.

We should also link to ContentShareProvider with a small explanation on how ContentShareProvider maxContentShares={2} impacts the ContentShare component.

If no tileId is provided, the component will render the default content share tile from (const { tileId } = useContentShareState()).

I think this is clear enough. It will use the existing tileId property from useContentShareState() hook

We should also link to ContentShareProvider with a small explanation on how ContentShareProvider maxContentShares={2} impacts the ContentShare component.

To clarify, maxContentShares doesn't impact ContentShare.

devalevenkatesh · 2025-04-23T18:18:52Z

src/components/sdk/ContentShare/index.tsx

 }) => {
  const audioVideo = useAudioVideo();
-  const { tileId } = useContentShareState();
+  const contentShareState = useContentShareState();


Thinking from keeping the props limited with no new optional props idea. How about we maintain tiles as an array in the content share state. Based on the number of tiles, we should show those many ContentTiles?

But yes, we would have to maintain support of contantShareState.tileId.

In short, I decide to let builder to decide how and where to render the multiple content share tiles via the new tileId of ContentShare component. Check code example in its documentation for example.

devalevenkatesh · 2025-04-23T18:22:26Z

src/components/sdk/ContentShare/index.tsx

+      className={`ch-content-share--${tileIdToRender} ${className || ''}`}
      {...rest}
      ref={videoEl}
+      data-content-share-attendee={attendeeId}


Is this for testing?

yeah, this is to make it easier for builder to know which tile is for which attendee so they can locate the element quickly.

ziyiz-amzn · 2025-04-23T19:03:26Z

lgtm overall.

devalevenkatesh · 2025-04-23T19:06:39Z

src/providers/ContentShareProvider/docs/ContentShareProvider.mdx

 {
-  // The tile ID of the active content share
+  // The tile ID of the active content share (deprecated, maintained for backward compatibility)
+  // When multiple content shares are present, this points to the most recently started content share


If there is a task for next major version release, we should have a point to rename this to activeTileId :)

No, we don't plan a major version release. When we do major version release in the future we will delete tileId and sharingAttendeeId and builder should use the new collections instead.

Yes it seems now the active tiles will be under tiles and current tileId -> tiles[0] where tiles will have a single content share to preserve backward compatibility.

devalevenkatesh · 2025-04-23T19:08:14Z

src/providers/ContentShareProvider/docs/ContentShareProvider.mdx


-  // The chime attendee ID of the user sharing
-  sharingAttendeeId: string | null;
+  // Whether the user can start a content share based on current limits and `isLocalUserSharing`


We can expand a bit more on "current limits" for clarity here. Is this just the maxContentShares?

Yeah, let me update it, it should be maxContentShares, current limits is not very clear.

Seems like still needs an update?

devalevenkatesh · 2025-04-23T20:27:01Z

src/providers/ContentShareProvider/docs/ContentShareProvider.mdx

 const App = () => (
  <CustomAudioVideoProvider>
-    <ContentShareProvider>
+    <ContentShareProvider maxContentShares={2}>


Its fine to drop the drop from here as its covered under the example updated above.

devalevenkatesh · 2025-04-23T20:33:46Z

src/providers/ContentShareProvider/docs/useContentShareControls.mdx

  paused: boolean;

+  // Whether or not the local user is currently sharing content
+  isLocalUserSharing: boolean;


Can these be accessed from useContentShareState and we do not add them in this hook as well? The idea seems like this provides actions on content share vs the other one providing the state. I do see we have paused here, but checking if the other hook works or we need them repeated at two places. I think we should unify the usage to what the naming suggests.

These are already available in this hook, we simply forgot updating the type definition and documentation 5 years ago. The only new property is canStartContentShare

devalevenkatesh · 2025-04-23T20:36:41Z

src/providers/ContentShareProvider/docs/useContentShareState.mdx

+
+  // Content is being shared
+  const contentShareTileId = tiles[0] // Or deprecated `tileId`
+  const attendeeId = attendeeIdToTileId[contentShareTileId.toString()] // Or deprecated `sharingAttendeeId`


Can the TileId's be numbers and the key in attendeeIdToTileId be number to avoid this toString() explicit conversions?

Yeah object key can be a number. But this how RemoteVideoTileProvider is doing it, I decide to follow the same.

devalevenkatesh · 2025-04-23T20:38:27Z

src/providers/ContentShareProvider/docs/useContentShareState.mdx

+        <ul>
+          <li>Active content shares: {tiles.length}</li>
+          <li>Current content share ID: {contentShareTileId}</li>
+          <li>Shared by: {attendeeId[]}</li>


Have to correct to -> attendeeId?

devalevenkatesh · 2025-04-23T20:42:18Z

src/providers/ContentShareProvider/docs/useContentShareState.mdx

+};
+```
+
+### With Multiple Content Shares


For builders to understand documentation wise thinking over single vs 2 content share approach example how about we document like?

Deprecated approach -> just a single tileId. Example shows just the current tileId. That way they still see this supported but deprecating and newer way is like below.
New approach -> Supports upto 2 concurrent content shares. Single vs 2 comes under this.

I think that's fine, we don't want to encourage builders to use deprecated properties after this change.

I improved the comment a little bit to make it more clear

// Get the content share tile ID const contentShareTileId = tiles[0]; // Note: Previously known as `tileId` (deprecated) // Attendee Id for content sharer const attendeeId = attendeeIdToTileId[contentShareTileId.toString()]; // Note: Previously known as `sharingAttendeeId` (deprecated)

Hmm, that makes sense, this would remove how one might try to use with existing tileId. I was more caring towards explaining that in more details with explicit examples but this works too.

Yeah, we add deprecated annotation to them. So when trying to use them it looks like this now:

devalevenkatesh · 2025-04-23T20:49:01Z

src/providers/ContentShareProvider/state.tsx

-  | RemoveAction
-  | DeniedAction
-  | ResetAction;
+  | { type: ContentActionType.STARTING; payload?: StartingPayload }


We are updating some of the types for the payload here. What if someone is depending on this component currently and it starts failing for them as the types updated. Is this a backward incompatible change?

These are internal type, so it's fine. It's export here but not export in index.ts file. It's not public available.

src/providers/ContentShareProvider/state.tsx

xuesichao requested a review from a team as a code owner April 22, 2025 21:03

ltrung reviewed Apr 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

xuesichao commented Apr 22, 2025

View reviewed changes

ziyiz-amzn reviewed Apr 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

devalevenkatesh reviewed Apr 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/providers/ContentShareProvider/state.tsx Show resolved Hide resolved

xuesichao force-pushed the multiple-content-share branch from db5e0dd to c2ba9c5 Compare April 23, 2025 23:53

devalevenkatesh previously approved these changes Apr 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

xuesichao requested review from ltrung and ziyiz-amzn April 24, 2025 17:54

Add support for multiple content shares

ba943b9

xuesichao dismissed devalevenkatesh’s stale review via ba943b9 April 24, 2025 19:02

xuesichao force-pushed the multiple-content-share branch from c2ba9c5 to ba943b9 Compare April 24, 2025 19:02

ziyiz-amzn approved these changes Apr 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

xuesichao requested a review from devalevenkatesh April 24, 2025 23:24

xuesichao merged commit e7606ce into main Apr 25, 2025
2 checks passed

xuesichao deleted the multiple-content-share branch April 25, 2025 16:52


		### Added

		- Added support for multiple content shares in meetings through the `ContentShareProvider`. The provider now accepts a `maxContentShares` prop (default: 1, range 1-2) to specify the maximum number of concurrent content shares allowed.


		## Multiple Content Shares

		With the support for multiple content shares, you can now specify which content share tile to render by providing the `tileId` prop. If no `tileId` is provided, the component will render the default content share tile from (`const { tileId } = useContentShareState()`).

Add support for multiple content shares #998

Add support for multiple content shares #998

Uh oh!

Conversation

xuesichao commented Apr 22, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ziyiz-amzn Apr 23, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

xuesichao Apr 23, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

devalevenkatesh Apr 23, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

xuesichao Apr 23, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

devalevenkatesh Apr 23, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

xuesichao Apr 23, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

devalevenkatesh Apr 23, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

xuesichao Apr 23, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

ziyiz-amzn Apr 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

xuesichao Apr 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

devalevenkatesh Apr 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

xuesichao Apr 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

devalevenkatesh Apr 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

xuesichao Apr 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

devalevenkatesh Apr 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

xuesichao Apr 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading

devalevenkatesh Apr 23, 2025 •

edited

Loading